If PRIAC wishes to implement a brand strategy that moves away from a price / feature leader, the following needs to happen:

Without having any direct knowledge of how PRIAC prices to its volume resellers, I believe PRIAC needs to quietly and incrementally raise the wholesale prices of its entire line, use the increased cash flow for "market development" (print, televison and online advertising, endoresment, brand identity establishment, marketing, sales person salaries, regional service, longer warranties, repair center improvement, web presence, public relations and whatever else I'm not thinking of). PRICL needs to raise its cost-accounting price to PRIAC and use the icnreased revenue to develop a broader line of lenses and the terchnological improvements we have discussed (AF, SDM, Flash sync, etc.) and the system accessories necessary to be considered a true camera company.

Do you think PRIAC as currently constituted (management, employees, sales, advertising and marketing contractors, service contractor, etc.) is capable of all that?

"I would also like to dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies."

The above quote could hardly be any clearer.

The reason why your quote does not say what you claim it says is that

Bunnell says "...summarized the situation quite well by saying...", i.e., he leaves room for inaccuracies, and

The post he quotes surely does not say "Ricoh" but "Pentax", and I'm pretty sure he automatically translates "Pentax" into "Pentax USA".

That is the same blog the qoutes that I posted are from. His organization is named Pentax a Ricoh Company. If this came from Pentax Japan, it was very likely someone shifted there from Ricoh. It doesn't really matter. You are arguing semantics and the UPP was not called by Adorama, BH, Abe's of Maine and Amazon getting together. Given that it was allegedly designed in part to shore up gray markets, and retails sales to people outside the U.S.A., the instructions likely went to Denver from Tokyo.

Let's say a distributor was caught lowering price and resold on amazon. The other online stores see this and lower their prices to match. This is all against Pentax's new pricing policy without Pentax approval. Pentax cuts off/ penalized the distributor and prices will go back to the approved price but the price will not go back until oh lets say July. Everyone seems to think its Pentax idea, maybe its a rogue distributor. Why would they allow the lower price only at online. Just saying. Watch the price go back up end of the month to see if I'm correct.

Ricoh had the "clever" idea to out price Canikon (as for some reason Ricoh managers would counsel that whereas US managers wouldn't), and

Ned lied to us when he said that Ricoh had nothing to do with the UPP.

Are you sure that's what you want to say?

If I had to place a bet, I'd say Ricoh may have commented on the US situation and/or set new goals but that the implementation is due to Pentax USA.

I don't think that Ned Bunnell has hit home runs with his recent interviews and blog posts, but I do not believe that he is a liar.

Originally posted by Blue

That is the same blog the qoutes that I posted are from. His organization is named Pentax a Ricoh Company. If this came from Pentax Japan, it was very likely someone shifted there from Ricoh. It doesn't really matter. You are arguing semantics and the UPP was not called by Adorama, BH, Abe's of Maine and Amazon getting together. Given that it was allegedly designed in part to shore up gray markets, and retails sales to people outside the U.S.A., the instructions likely went to Denver from Tokyo.

The options for price control may have gone from Denver to Tokyo, but only after Tokyo set unachievable per unit margin conditions.

Tokyo probably says "We need higher margins per unit from the US, and we need to control the channel because a lot of product destined for the US is boomeranging back to OZ, Canada, Europe , etc. We need to pay shareholders back for purchasing Pentax."

Ned probably said "Let's do what Nikon and Apple did with UPP".

Tokyo then got $$$$ in their eyes like a greedy Manga character and told him that was the best option.

Then they sent the price list on a spreadsheet over that was market-tested for Russian oil barons.

I am not calling Ned a liar. I am saying his hands were tied. He's under new management. This is classic.

And they tried doing all that 'margin increasing' and 'shareholder payout' without actually getting any more money for the lenses from their customers/dealers?? By making a move knowing was very likely going to decrease sales of those lenses?

And they tried doing all that 'margin increasing' and 'shareholder payout' without actually getting any more money for the lenses from their customers/dealers?? By making a move knowing was very likely going to decrease sales of those lenses?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

And just weeks earlier Ricoh's management made noises about maintaining and strengthening their #3 position and market share; that's what Ricoh would bring to the Pentax brand with corporate push and structure.

"Repair" will being going on for long time. The amount of threads this issue has created will have a very long and timeless reach.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm waiting for another announcement.

Well prices in the UK have not fallen since their super sharp hike. I rang SRS Microsystems (Pentax main UK retailer) and asked them if they knew of any forthcoming price reduction and they knew nothing of such a thing happening. I hope it's going to happen sometime soon!

Tokyo probably says "We need higher margins per unit from the US, and we need to control the channel because a lot of product destined for the US is boomeranging back to OZ, Canada, Europe , etc. ..."

Your assumption above (1.),

plus Ned's statement "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies" (2.), and

Originally posted by Aristophanes

I am not calling Ned a liar.

(3.),

are not compatible with each other.

You cannot change (2.), so you have to pick either (1.) or (3.).

If Ned had said "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that Ricoh came up with our changes in retail channel pricing policies." then he would have been diplomatic (by taking responsibility for the UPP idea and leaving open the question of the initiator of the change).

However Ned chose "in any way responsible" which rules out your (1.) or makes him a liar.

plus Ned's statement "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies" (2.), and

(3.),

are not compatible with each other.

You cannot change (2.), so you have to pick either (1.) or (3.).

If Ned had said "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that Ricoh came up with our changes in retail channel pricing policies." then he would have been diplomatic (by taking responsibility for the UPP idea and leaving open the question of the initiator of the change).

However Ned chose "in any way responsible" which rules out your (1.) or makes him a liar.

All you are proving is that you need an education in corporate doublespeak.

You're main assumption is in assuming that Ned is speaking independently and authoritatively.

For all we know that phrase of Ned's you keep repeating was written by a lawyer in Tokyo talking to a lawyer in London.

Ned is a corporate officer and is paid to say what Pentax tells him to say.

All you are proving is that you need an education in corporate doublespeak.

It appears that I'm receiving a lesson on "corporate doublespeak" from you.

You want to both

state that Ned is not truthful, but

not admit to the fact that you are calling him a liar

at the same time which seems an impossible feat.

You seem to be implying that it is Ned's job to tell stories and therefore he is not lying when he only does his job. That's not how "lying" is defined though. Even if it is in your job description, you are still lying, if you speak the untruth.

Aristophanes, I like your posts in general. I have different views on the power relation between Sony and Nikon, how soon we'll see a Pentax FF camera, and who is responsible for the UPP mess, but most of the time I agree with your findings.

However, you cannot have your cake (state that Ned is not truthful) and eat it too (not admit that you are calling him a liar).

Well prices in the UK have not fallen since their super sharp hike. I rang SRS Microsystems (Pentax main UK retailer) and asked them if they knew of any forthcoming price reduction and they knew nothing of such a thing happening. I hope it's going to happen sometime soon!

Me too though its not a sure thing, I'd guess. Looks like the increases were a worldwide move from the head office despite all the excitement on here about American salez bizarro. If prices fall a bit in one market, that may not mean they reduce elsewhere. Outfits like big American retailers have clout whereas local one-off stores have almost none especially in smaller markets. We'll see anyway.

This has caused me to look around. I was in a pop part of London yesterday - Spitalfields - where lots of photographers go. Couldn't but notice that those clearly taking considered shots - i.e. not tourists - were often using rangefinders, about 50/50 Leica and Fuji. Tempting: they are so small and nifty by comparison to my K5 and zoom. A couple of old blokes were using FFs on tripods. I almost felt like it was a generation thing, The new gen isn't in love with DSLRs, perhaps.

plus Ned's statement "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies" (2.), and

(3.),

are not compatible with each other.

You cannot change (2.), so you have to pick either (1.) or (3.).

If Ned had said "...dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that Ricoh came up with our changes in retail channel pricing policies." then he would have been diplomatic (by taking responsibility for the UPP idea and leaving open the question of the initiator of the change).

However Ned chose "in any way responsible" which rules out your (1.) or makes him a liar.

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Listen, I'm not trying to come down hard on Ned for what he's said, but...